An opponent of allowing undocumented migrants to remain in the United States engages with a counter-protestor during a July 4 protest in Murrieta, Calif. Earlier, protesters turned away buses carrying about 140 immigrants who had been apprehended in Texas. (David McNew/Getty Images)

Jul. 9, 2014

Immigration, Patriotism and the Common Good

COMMENTARY

JOHN ZMIRAK

Earlier this week, Fox News was kind enough to publish a commentary by me and my co-author, Jason Jones, where we wrote:

Today we face a moral and political crisis on our borders, where the well-being and even the lives of innocent children are endangered, along with the principles of national sovereignty and public order. Responses across the political spectrum have been at best bumbling, and at worst profoundly cynical.

We must be completely blunt about the real-world, often-selfish interests that underlie the public positions presented on this issue. In the spirit of St. Augustine, who candidly called pagan Roman rulers “a band of robbers” who had robed themselves in law, let me call out each of the groups contending for power over America’s immigration laws, who jointly have created the present gridlock.

Each group, of course, contains idealistic people who believe sincerely in the rhetoric they use. But the stakes for which each fights are starkly real and ought to be kept in mind whenever you read their hand-wringing press releases. We must be “wise as serpents.”

The multiculturalist left. This group considers white America predatory, the heirs of slave owners and Indian-killers, and it wants to see America’s cultural majority diluted and then reduced to a resented, once-dominant class — like the embattled whites of South Africa.

The Democratic Party and its allies. The party of big government can only stand to gain by the influx of poor, uneducated people whose votes it feels sure it can buy with the promise of generous government programs.

The cheap labor lobby. The restaurant and construction industries rely heavily on illegal labor. An immigration amnesty might move some of their workers out of the shadows — but these would quickly be replaced by the next wave of illegal entrants, attracted by the prospect of the next amnesty down the road.

Churches that cannot successfully pass along the faith to native-born Americans, who wish to fill their pews for a single generation with new immigrants — whose children will likewise (studies suggest) quickly leave for other religions or none. No doubt there are genuine humanitarian impulses at work among such leaders as well, but since they are fallen like the rest of us, it wouldn’t be honest to dismiss institutional self-interest as a motive.

Social conservatives who seek to escape the stigma that comes with being pro-marriage or pro-life by embracing a position that proves their “openness.”

On the opposite side of the immigration issue, there are also groups with motives that deserve to be exposed:

Genuinely racist whites who find the presence of other races physically repulsive, who resent hearing languages other than English.

Population pessimists who think that there are already too many Americans and who fear that newcomers will have too many babies.

Selfish upper-middle-class people who resent paying taxes to support fellow Americans in genuine need, who would gladly deport the native-born poor if they could. They prefer paying workers “off the books” and sending them when they are injured to the public emergency ward.

Cynical politicians who want neither to secure the U.S. border nor to regularize the status of illegal immigrants who already live here. They are happy to have those people here working cheaply, as long as they cannot vote.

Of course, most Americans fall somewhere in the middle of this debate and have mixed reactions to the immigration debate. But the policy options they are offered are mostly driven by the "hard-core" proponents on opposite sides of the debate.

Knowing all this, is there some reasonable compromise that Catholics can embrace which honors the real moral principles at stake? The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the only binding authority here, is concise and balanced on those principles.

The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him. Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens (2241).

In a previous piece, I parsed what the Catechism has to say, line by line. Let me sum it up here: People have a genuine right to switch countries when they are unsafe or cannot find “means of livelihood.” The Catechism says nothing about mere economic betterment; I would live better in Switzerland, but that does not mean that the Swiss owe me citizenship. Only the prospect of grave physical danger or the inability to live and raise children grants a right of immigration. Even then, this right is not absolute, but is subject to the “common good” of the receiving countries. Part of that common good which immigrants must respect, as a condition of exercising the right to enter a country, is to “respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”

How many illegal immigrants to the U.S. faced death or starvation in their home countries? (Those who did deserve “refugee” status.) How many immigrants — especially uneducated people, entering a country with shrinking opportunities for its own less-skilled citizens — ought to be admitted to America, in accord with the “common good?” This is a subject for debate about what is prudent, with a special attention to the effect of immigration on the poorest Americans.

Are people who have entered our country against its best efforts and who work here in fact “obey[ing] its laws”? Clearly not: They are violating its immigration and labor laws, and many of them commit identity theft as part of working here illegally. Therefore, according to the criteria laid out in the Catechism, by failing in the responsibility that comes along with their right, they have forfeited it. (Just so, a worker who did not do his job would lose his right to a just wage.) Strict justice for such immigrants would mean deportation.

But we want to be merciful, where we can, while protecting the common good. And it is surely imprudent to deport 12 million people. It is equally imprudent to grant those people an amnesty while the U.S. borders are still insecure — since doing so would surely invite yet another influx. Even the rumor of a possible amnesty goaded thousands of parents to dump their children across our borders. Every child who dies in the desert is a victim of those rumors.

A sane solution, which respects the common good and the human dignity of immigrants, would entail both border security and a measure of mercy. First, we must complete a border fence and make mandatory the strict enforcement of workplace verification for workers. We must track visitors who overstay their visas and swiftly remove them. Lawmakers have proposed workable plans for enacting all these reforms — which have been obstructed and sidelined by proponents of unconditional amnesty.

If we put such firm policies in place, and made their enforcement well known to potential immigrants, it would then be safe to grant some legal status to current illegal residents. Rashly extending amnesty without border security would lead thousands more to die in the desert — and extend the problem of illegal immigration indefinitely into the future. We would simply be kicking the can down the road to our grandchildren, as we do when we load up on deficits that they will have to pay back.

Of course, crafting such a “grand compromise” on the intensely emotional subject of immigration, where so many hidden motives underlie the noble phrases invoked by leaders on every side, will demand humility, courage and a strong grasp of the real moral principles at stake. We must dismiss the instincts of tribalism on both sides of the issue and work together for the common good of the country. That is our duty as patriotic citizens who are grateful for all that our nation has given us, who know that love of neighbor demands the practice of thoughtful, active citizenship.

Our ancestors used to make sacrifices for the sake of their descendants. We have learned to make things easy for ourselves at the expense of the next generation — just one more symptom of the "culture of death."

I would have you add one group to your list, but perhaps deserved of its own category: black Americans. They are being ethnically replaced in the cities (New Orleans post-Katrina a good example), the construction trades and various services, and in the Democrat Party itself. I wish this part of the impact of illegal immigration would be more publicized, but the MS media can’t fit it into the Narrative.

I await another cry from the bishops about the immorality of separating parents from their children. Perhaps, since they strongly voiced concern about this morality, they might just now require our sending them home to their families. Will the bishops demand such moral action?

Posted by Robert on Tuesday, Jul, 29, 2014 10:09 AM (EST):

May I say that in my view the current dilema could be resolved by implementing the following steps:(1)enforce our borders as of this date and ensure that all future immigrants go through the proper legal process to gain entry to our Country; and, (2) treat prior illegal immigrants as we would treat any criminal who can’t be caught within a proscribed Statute of Limitations period.

Posted by John on Tuesday, Jul, 15, 2014 8:49 PM (EST):

Tom,
First, for the record, it may be that adultery is not a crime punishable by civil law. It’s also true though that adultery is a crime within the realm of canon law.
As to your last statement, I have not conflated anything. Whether you choose to use the term “concern” or “crime”, the point remains the same.

You insist that trespassing is a minor crime, one that only grows serious when aggravated by other actions.
I say instead that trespassing across a national border is, itself, a major crime, not requiring any further action to be a very serious matter.

I do believe that trespassing on another nation’s lands, is in fact, a grave crime and requires serious attention and appropriate punishment.

I think it sad that you and so many others seem determined to reject this idea.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Tuesday, Jul, 15, 2014 8:03 PM (EST):

@John:
My “exact words” were that trespassing is a “minor CRIME”...but one that can be defended against more seriously because it is a necessary prelude to more serious crimes…and from this, you claim that I am saying that trespassing is a minor CONCERN? So, in other words, you believe that “crime” and “concern” are the same thing. They don’t; adultery isn’t a CRIME at all, but it is a major CONCERN.
-
Again: argue with what I say, my EXACT words—“crime” is not “concern”—not with your deliberate conflation of two quite distinct concepts, that make it easier for you to criticize me for saying things I didn’t.

[comment edited]

Posted by John on Tuesday, Jul, 15, 2014 3:14 PM (EST):

I don’t think it wise to be paying for a government safety net. I think it would be much wiser for families and churches to provide for those needed forms of assistance.

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Jul, 15, 2014 11:18 AM (EST):

John ,
I certainly agree that we are in the birth-dearth mode because Americans choose contraception & consumerism over children.Our selfishness & self absorption got us to this point.Western Europe & pretty much everywhere else in the world’s heading the same direction.Latin America, too.
I wish there was a convincing way to encourage larger families, but France can’t even pay people to have more kids.Our fallen human nature’s selfish at its core.
I’m very much in favor of immigration.But I don’t support encouraging kids to risk life & limb, falling off trains,dieing in the desert,etc to come to the US. I don’t think illegal entry into our country is a good thing for many reasons, one being that it’s dangerous for the migrants & creates opportunities for their exploitation.
But I don’t care what color/ethnicity, etc our new immigrants are.Anyone who is decent, hardworking & will contribute to society is welcome in my book.
And I don’t support most govt. handouts, either, unless it’s as a safety net & a way to get people back on their feet.We need something to keep folks from falling thru the cracks, but not govt assistance as a lifestyle.

Posted by John on Monday, Jul, 14, 2014 2:10 PM (EST):

mrscracker,
Your analysis seems to assume that we need immigration of some sort to occur because we can’t sustain ourselves because we spend too much and don’t have enough kids. I remind you that we, as a Catholic populace, have helped bring this circumstance about in no small part by refusing to follow our own Church’s teachings regarding sexuality and taking sustaining one’s own life.
We do not have a need for immigration nearly as much as we need to cease contracepting and aborting our population out of existence and requiring people to actually find work to pay their own bills.
Illegally “recruiting” tons of people from south of the border will hurt everyone far more in the long run as our social services capabilities have already been strained and our nation already owes trillions of dollars.
With this situation developing, everyone is being set up for a massive human need crisis when the federal government literally no money left to spend.

Posted by John on Monday, Jul, 14, 2014 2:02 PM (EST):

“I SAID that the border crossing is a crime—trespassing, specifically. Trespassing, in and of itself, is a very minor crime, although it can be defended against as if it were much more serious because it is often a prelude to much more serious crimes.”

“...Trespassing, in and of itself, is a very minor crime,...”

That’s your exact statement, Tom. You’re pretty clear that trespassing is only a minor concern, except for special circumstances. I’m disagreeing, stating that I and others consider trespassing across a national border to be a major crime, not requiring further crimes to be committed to warrant serious action.

Posted by mrscracker on Monday, Jul, 14, 2014 10:37 AM (EST):

Colin Kerr,
Thanks for bringing up the “agenda” issue.That’s what’s been troubling me, too. I see few proposals to actually aid migrants, but many to make the migrants a political tool for gain.And this had been on all sides of the political spectrum.
I don’t know about our not being able to afford “the American way of life.” I’m not really sure what that way of life is.I live in one of the “poorest” states in the US but see luxury items in virtually every home, no matter how modest.Folks in publically assisted housing have flat screen tv’s.Drive around neighborhoods the day after Christmas & look at the empty boxes outside for trash pick up.The amount of material consumption is amazing.I think the way of life many of us have adopted involves large amounts of debt & it’s not sustainable.
The recent “American way of life” is more of an illusion & what we can’t afford is more personal debt & waste.
We are also at a very low birthrate.Without immigration, we might be heading the same direction as Japan & western Europe.
Immigration is an “American way of life,” too.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Sunday, Jul, 13, 2014 10:32 PM (EST):

@John: So…when I said that “can be defended against as if it were much more serious because it is often a prelude to much more serious crimes”, what part of that did you decide was me saying that trespassing was “a minor concern”? This is what I’m talking about: you’re criticizing me for saying the exact opposite of what I say. Again, read my comments, and reply to THEM, not to your assumptions about what I MEANT. I assure you, I am not stupid; the things that I ACTUALLY say are usually what I ACTUALLY mean. I’ll thank you not to treat my remarks as a fumbling attempt to convey something else.

Posted by Colin Kerr on Sunday, Jul, 13, 2014 8:58 AM (EST):

Thanks so much for such an astute analysis. As a Canadian and a Catholic I ponder the moral dimension of this situation. Perhaps the only thing I think you missed in your ‘pro’ and ‘con’ list is perhaps a bonafide ‘good’ reason to be against letting these people in, which was not exactly what you said in your second ‘con’ reason: your country has a massive financial problem, which you seem nowhere close to remedying. You cannot afford your American way of life now, how can you let in more people who will further weigh on your system?

I am really glad you pointed to the possible duplicity in the church’s, even the Catholic Church’s, support of amnesty. I think pro-amnesty Christians are being too simplistic. Is there a will and a means to support these people? Letting them in and then ignoring them to score ideological points is horrible. Letting them in in the hopes that it will make the country more socialistic is also using people. Are all of these people really going to be better off living in the slums of New York than they were in their native countries? Whatever the case, this is a lamentable case of ideologically-minded people using others’ economic plight to further their own agendas. The POTUS has made a real mess of things in his weakness.

Posted by John on Sunday, Jul, 13, 2014 4:56 AM (EST):

Tom,
I did read your entire comment and did reply to YOU. You may not have stated anything specifically about peaceful intent for newcomers, but your comments certainly imply that view, at least to my reading. I notice you even accuse someone of abusing statistics in the name of emphasizing how “innocent” you seem to consider inbound persons to be. I think thisa serious mistake. Even ignoring the problem of drug cartels—a very foolish view—we cannot legitimately consider trespassing a minor problem.

I don’t believe I’ve ever met a private property owner who felt trespassing on their property to be a minor concern. Quite the contrary. Those who’ve suffered a trespasser typically feel violated.
That being the case, even more so do we consider it a serious transgression when we’re dealing with a nation’s border.

Mexico and the US have not formally armed the border…yet.
Regrettably, I think we need to do so on our side. When that happens, borders become deadly.
Shootings over fence-lines—or without the fence—regarding who has the right to stand on a patch of ground are anything but minor matters.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Saturday, Jul, 12, 2014 7:48 PM (EST):

@John: Read my whole comment. I SAID that the border crossing is a crime—trespassing, specifically. Trespassing, in and of itself, is a very minor crime, although it can be defended against as if it were much more serious because it is often a prelude to much more serious crimes. That’s why countries HAVE borders in the first place. Nevertheless the fact is that most of the illegal entrants to this country are not criminals, apart from their illegal entry—as one might say a trespasser has no criminal record, apart from their trespassing.
-
I never said a word about “peaceful”, either. If you’re going to reply to me, reply to ME, not to someone else you mix me up with.

Posted by John on Saturday, Jul, 12, 2014 4:21 AM (EST):

“‘criminal invaders’ is not accurate”

On the contrary, Tom, crossing the border illegally IS a crime and I have seen little cause for why we should not consider it an invasion, however “peaceful”. I’d say the term is quite accurate.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Friday, Jul, 11, 2014 7:26 PM (EST):

@Donald Link: In the 1920s and 1930s, the US gave large amounts of military aid to governments like that of Plutarco Calles—the guy who executed Blessed Miguel Pro and massacred the Cristeros. Is that a part of the “credible job” you’re talking about?

Posted by William F. Folger on Friday, Jul, 11, 2014 1:48 PM (EST):

@Antionette
Antoinette, re your Jul 10, 2014 4:39 PM comment, it will be very helpful if you would aid fellow-commenters’ understanding via the few most critical, specific CCC citations (first, just the numbers) that you are very confident in. For each of those numbers, it will help if, within brief parentheses, you copied only the key words/partial-phrases that help make your case. Please give any of your own points/observations that you feel could aid our understanding. Otherwise, those of us with a range of limitations especially of time and other problems see a Task-Too-Large of reading through the entire Catechism and hunting without some guidance. Thank you, Antoinette.

Posted by TexasKnight on Friday, Jul, 11, 2014 10:40 AM (EST):

Your sentence, “Every child who dies in the desert is a victim of those rumors” says it all. Those that take actions that will continue to encourage illegal immigrants to run the gauntlet of sex slave traders, drug cartels and the desert will be held accountable by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

However, the following sentence is very disturbing, “Selfish upper-middle-class people who resent paying taxes to support fellow Americans in genuine need…” The key word is genuine. Our country is being purposefully financially bankrupt by the socialist party of death in large part through wealth redistribution. They have coupled this with their push for so call sexual freedom and the contraceptive mentality. The combination is deadly to our society. Today, 40% of our children are born single mothers. Only 28% of our children can expect their parents to stay married for life. As always, our sins fall on our children.

Pray that our clergy and bishops will awaken to the evil that they promote: false charity by central government wealth redistribution.

BTW, if anyone thinks that this is not true, then explain how 53% of Catholics voted for the most pro-abortion president in our nations history who promised to force Catholics to pay for contraceptives. It is because our bishops promote the wealth redistribution in spite of all the intrinsic evils being perpetrated by our government.

And never loose sight of this fact: The Democratic party could have passed any law they wanted in the 1st 2 years of Obama’s presidency. Ask yourself this, why didn’t they fix immigration? Wake up America!

Posted by Donald Link on Friday, Jul, 11, 2014 10:10 AM (EST):

If the whole basis of the immigration problem is trouble in the homelands of these people of a criminal nature, whether it be by the government or some other group, maybe it is time to exercise that other Chrstian imperative by coming to the aid of these countries so that the forced emigration of its citizens might be curtailed. The US Marines did a credible job in this area in the 1920s and 1930s until Roosevelt and his bungling “Good Neighbor” policy led to the rise of dictatorships in almost every Central and South American country.

Posted by Manny on Friday, Jul, 11, 2014 10:03 AM (EST):

I completely agree with you. This is the first time I’m seeing the claim that the Catholic Church acknowledges the illegality of crossing the border. For me, that’s the hang up. They came across illegal and jumped ahead of those that followed the rules. Another thing that bothers me, Mexico is not a poor nation. Sure they are not as rich as us, but they are abdicating their responsibility to help their poor. Read through Wikipedia entry on Mexico and you’ll see their economy is one of the largest with middle of the road GDP.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico

Posted by mrscracker on Friday, Jul, 11, 2014 9:32 AM (EST):

John ,
Hispanic immigrants may be slow to use English, but trust me, their kids learn it in a heartbeat.You can’t go through US public or parochial schools without learning English.
Much of southern & southwestern US previously belonged to Spain/Mexico.Hispanic culture’s been here for a very long time, much longer than the current influx of migrants.If we had that same history & proximity to Ireland, it might be a different story, but Mexico’s our neighbor instead.Hispanic culture is already established in the USA& I think has benefitted us.Seriously, look at American restaurants & food trends.We’re all eating Hispanic these days.
:)

Posted by Paul on Friday, Jul, 11, 2014 9:04 AM (EST):

Seeing the comments thread devolve into political bashing is disheartening. Leave partisan politics aside for a moment and learn about what’s happening in these countries to drive so many children to the border. What should be our Christian response?

Excellent assessment of the problem and evaluation of those selfish desires of the people who have the responsibility of solving the problem. Only God’s grace can solve this problem under these conditions.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Friday, Jul, 11, 2014 12:19 AM (EST):

@Floyd: You are essentially correct, but your argument suffers from your intemperate phrasing and simplistic representation of the situation. To whit, “criminal invaders” is not accurate. The crime-rate in Arizona has fallen while the rate of illegal immigration and the illegal-immigrant population as a whole have risen. That is, crime and illegal immigration (other than the illegal immigration itself, which in and of itself is no more serious than trespassing, mostly because it IS trespassing) do not correlate. Admittedly, almost all the crime that remains in Arizona is in some way connected to drug-trafficking, which is of course not unrelated to illegal immigration, but the fact is that most of the illegals are NOT criminals. (If you reply with those much-publicized incidents of illegals who ARE criminals doing horrendous things, it is tantamount to admitting you don’t understand how statistics work or when generalization is valid. “Anecdote” is not the singular of “data”.)

Posted by GHU on Friday, Jul, 11, 2014 12:14 AM (EST):

What disturbs me the most are the Bishops supporting illegal immigration and pushing for a so called “comprehensive” immigration law…..aka amnesty. This country and many souls are going to H—- in a hand basket (contraceptives, abortion, the push for assisted suicide and euthanasia and the destruction of natural traditional marriage and the family) and the Bishops are silent, but illegal immigration…..they sure are out there preaching!

Of course we should help the poor, which I do as much as I can; but should I support the hoards of illegal
immigrants that are taking jobs from Americans and the future jobs of my grandchildren?? What about drugs, criminals and who knows who coming in to the USA through the sieve of the border? Why do we have laws
when we don’t enforce them? Just how many illegal immigrants are you and the Bishops/ Priests going to house and take care of??? The USA can not take in all the poor of the world.

Posted by Bob on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 11:59 PM (EST):

Solution: Invite Mexico to become the 51st state. Our government is less corrupt than theirs is. A significant problem that we could realistically resolve are their drug cartels (our military could eliminate them much easier/faster than the bad guys in the middle east). They have many natural resources and lots of beautiful coastline. Many of us (Americans) already speak some spanish and are accustomed to “Mexican culture”. Most of Mexico is more Christian/Catholic than the US and could actually be a good influence for us. I would consider moving there and buying affordable beachfront property.

Posted by Robert on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 10:47 PM (EST):

Well said Ann….....Amen

Posted by John on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 9:38 PM (EST):

I think Mr. Zmirak hurls the notion of “racism” far too easily. If he thinks white Americans are “racists” because we don’t automatically embrace another language or culture, it’d be good for him to explain how he intends that the nation shall be allowed to communicate within itself. No problem can be solved if an incoming bunch of people simply sit down, refuse to abandon their old language, but demand that we care for them anyway.
If anything, I think the racism comes from those who insist that the incoming population must be allowed to continue to speak their old language, regardless of circumstances.

If someone wants to rail against America because of our alleged Irish ancestry, I’d like to emphasize that eventually, our ancestors became every bit as American as anyone else. In spite of my being 75% Irish, I couldn’t tell you much of anything useful at all about Irish culture. I think it is, in fact, the notion that Hispanics are not expected to assimilate at all with their surrounding communities that I find abominable.

If someone else wants to argue that many Irish Catholics are Democrats because of rejection some 100 years ago, I emphasize the idea that I’m technically Irish Catholic, but I’m NOT a Democrat, precisely because the Democrats routinely promote ideas that I consider gravel sinful.

If we want to have a genuinely multicultural nation that pursues virtue, we need to celebrate all the Western European cultural identities that’ve been effectively demolished along with all the Hispanic culture, then we need to insist that everyone be genuinely functional in English so we can at least communicate with each other without translators.

BTW, for what I’ve heard, the Irish who came in to the US did suffer plenty at the hands of other groups, as noted by another commenter. Unfortunately, I believe history also shows that once the Irish had reached some degree of critical mass of numbers, they wound up pulling the same BS on the immigrants that arrived 50 years after they, the Irish, did.
I think it a sad statement on our American Church that our clergy, especially our bishops, have never formally condemned this whole business of one ethnic group suffering first, then inflicting the same suffering on another ethnic group.
I think all ethnic groups ought to be condemned for their universal lack of (real, Catholic) charitable love for other groups.

Posted by Floyd on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 6:53 PM (EST):

How many billions of foreign criminal invaders does the NCR or Catholic Church think the US taxpayer should be supporting? Do you think it is merciful to impoverish American citizens so that foreign criminals in our midst live the life of Riley?

Real border security, no welfare for illegals, no jobs for illegals (e-verify) and no freaking “legalization” for those here illegally. (taking up 1/7th of our prison space too) We cannot afford it.

There already a way to come to the US legally and even a way to become a citizen. Those who do not use this system should not be rewarded at all.

The “common good” has to include the American citizen and taxpayer. Foreigners have their own country, why does the US have to take in the rejects from the whole world? What other country would impoverish its own people to kowtow to foreign criminal invaders??

Posted by William F. Folger on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 5:11 PM (EST):

Sincere apologies for my accidentally sending a late-last-night constructive comment—meant for the above excellent article and author John Zmirak—to a different earlier NCRegister forum with related topic “Catholic Dioceses on Front Line of Migrant Humanitarian Crisis” by Peter Jesserer Smith. Both articles indicate an *urgent* need for certain Campaign- & Election-Aids to head-off a disastrous November 4 Election likely to occur if we ignore the following pair of Aids never-before-used as such, a pair which can and must be effectively applied over these next four months.
.
God and wise Americans know the methodologies of the Left, of overloading good countries in multiple ways thus to hasten near-collapse in order to facilitate “rescue” by the LEFT! So, you good Americans, ask your God-respecting candidates to end their formal speeches and stump-talks, too, with brief, spot-on “PRAISE God, America, for America NEEDS God” (the essence of Aid #1). It’s the growing absence in America of expressed-Praise and the ongoing rejection of Need-of-God that will get us and our children divinely disciplined as early as 2016. Though lukewarm citizens cannot genuinely display Praise and Need for God, they easily give lip-service to non-committal “God bless America”.

Then—Aid #2—tell every honest voter that psalm 127:1 reminds us that WE VOTERS HIRE on Election Day the ones who can greatly contribute to American FAILURE. That is, from Psalm 127:1 – “Unless the LORD build the house [i.e., family and society] they labor in vain who build [i.e., poorly examined candidates will FAIL us and we could well be culpable for not taking Elections much more seriously]“. Without bracket-explanations, from psalm 127:1—– “Unless the LORD build the house they labor in vain who build“. We NEED a Veto-Proof Senate from November’s vote, to survive well for dangerous 2016!
.
If Catholic voters in each of the 15,000 Catholic parishes in the U.S. would seek out their local God-respecting candidates who are not contradictorily marred by gravely evil flaws (remember, a so-called “God-respecting pro-choicer” IS an oxymoron), then it will be impossible for the Left to stop the good portions of Conservative Media across America from “Talking up Aids 1 & 2”. Importantly, psalm 127:1 is honored by other Christian denominations. Ordinary Christians and others wanting a safer, more prosperous America: write letters-to-editors and give open support to God-respecting, humanity-respecting candidates. Then enjoy TURNOUT Day

Posted by Antoinette on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 3:39 PM (EST):

In reading the article and then the comments it is clear that a full understanding of the catechism is lacking by all the writers. So sad. Just re-read it.

Posted by Ferd on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 3:04 PM (EST):

What I do not understand is that why are we trying to block LEGAL immigrants from coming into our country? Yes, some may take away your jobs, but, we shouldn’t block anyone. If they are illegal, that is the government role.

We should be more welcoming.

Posted by John Harden on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 2:48 PM (EST):

Your piece lacks an important consideration, and that is the DRACONIAN immigration laws which compel people seeking refuge (or a better job, education, etc.) to enter our country illegally. Both revision of laws and reinforcement of our borders are necessary. One without the other is practically impossible.

Posted by T on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 2:20 PM (EST):

The idea that the US shouldn’t grant amnesty is silly. In addition to keeping people as a permanent underclass that can be exploited, the argument is poor. If we shouldn’t grant amnesty because it will encourage people, then we should also stop being the wealthiest nation in the world, because that’s a dang big attraction to migrate, legal or not.

Posted by T on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 2:13 PM (EST):

I’m having a hard time distinguishing the logic between the no amnesty arguments and the idea that over population is a huge problem.

Building a wall along 2000 miles of border is totally stupid. The border is way too big. Also, European countries don’t have border walls, but one country that did was Communist East Germany.

@sarah mac. There’s no way the US has that much interest.If you go to the CBO website, you can see that in the 2013 fiscal year, interest was 221 billion. That 6% of the entire federal budget. That’s a tiny amount, especially compared with the GDP of the US.

Fact is, the US can handle a lot more debt then we have. The interest rate on Federal bonds and securities has been low for while (which means it is dirt cheep for the Government to issue more debt). Yet the inflation rate has been very low, showing that the debt is no where close to being harmful. This, plus the fact that the global economy runs on the dollar should show that dollar is danger of collapsing. And also that the US government is no where near being insolvent.

Posted by Pat Payne on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 1:05 PM (EST):

The one piece of the puzzle that you left out, though, Mr. Zimrak, in the list of cynicism and venality on the pro side are the other governments themselves. For them, it’s a win-win: They don’t have to change often corrupt and kleptocratic systems (thereby threatening their own power and perquisites), they export the poorest in their countries elsewhere (thereby artificially deflating their own poverty numbers) who then send material support back to their families back home (thereby infusing more hard currency into the nation’s economy).

Posted by SouthCoast on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 12:52 PM (EST):

The cartels profit off of drugs and human trafficking. Anyone, in this country, who gives them material aid, by buying drugs or pornography, or hiring a prostitute, is not only morally bankrupt, but, frankly, unpatriotic, to boot.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 12:44 PM (EST):

@St Donatus: Roman slaves—who, forget voting rights, had no rights AT ALL—outnumbered Roman freemen since the very first days of the KINGDOM of Rome, forget the Republic or the Empire. The same was true of most Greek city-states; an economy that reposed on slavery, where most of the populace was slaves, was the norm for Mediterranean civilizations (other than Egypt, where the slave-free ratio was somewhat lower). A similar ratio was found in other slave-owning civilizations; 40% of Joseon Korea (1392-1897) was slaves (“nobi”), for example, and a good proportion of the not-technically-slaves were in the “untouchable” cheonmin caste (grave-diggers, prostitutes, butchers, executioners), something Greco-Roman culture didn’t have.
-
Increasing dependence on foreign labor was, indeed, a phenomenon of the Roman decline, but it was not slave-labor (I seem to recall that foreigners were not the major source of Roman slavery, Roman debtors were). The foreign labor the Romans became dependent on was “barbarian” auxiliaries, in the Army. The names of those units, deriving from the tribes they were originally recruited from, would become the names of several of the Roman provinces they would later come to administer, after the central government fell.

Posted by mrscracker on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 11:16 AM (EST):

St Donatus,
Perhaps the brighter side is that children of illegal migrants, if born in the USA, will become citizens themselves. So, the 2nd generation no longer is illegal, no longer is uneducated, can speak English, & can vote.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 11:06 AM (EST):

How many Catholics who read this are of Irish descent? Everything that is being said about undocumented workers today was said about the Irish. Was the potato famine sufficient reason to leave Ireland in such great numbers? That’s why Catholics have a heritage of being Democrats—because that was the party that welcomed the undocumented Irish immigrants. Look at your own ancestors and the Know-Nothings who tried to send them back.

As far as “breaking the law”: Jesus broke the law to rescue and feed people on the Sabbath. You were rescued at a great price, so you should be merciful and rescue others. You were undocumented workers in Egypt and God led you out. Ruth was living illegally in Israel (there was a law against Moabites) and she was able to glean.

Posted by ANNE on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 10:17 AM (EST):

Primarily it is the fault of OBAMA and his Administration (since Jan 2009).
1.) Obama does not protect our Borders to ensure legal trade and legal immigration only.
2.) Obama does not enforce existing laws which would include serious penalties on businesses who break immigration laws for cheaper labor.
- - - - - -
IMMIGRATION REFORM and CONTROL ACT of 1986.
required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status;
.
made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants;
.
legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants, and;
.
legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt;
candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language.” -
This is the Law.
.
Where is OBAMA? SLEEPING, or is it more sinister?
(He is fund raising, and blaming the Party that has no control over the OBAMA Administration.
______________________

Posted by St Donatus on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 9:58 AM (EST):

Wow, it is like reading the rise and fall of the Roman empire. This is similarity number 1643: Create a slave/working class that has no voting rights. At some point it will be larger than the ‘citizen’ class at which point the empire collapses. This is for two reasons, the slave/working non-citizen class have no reason to support the empire as it has used them. The ‘citizen’ class has become so selfish and immoral, it could care less about the plight of the empire. They will use it until they can’t get anything out of it anymore.

I am not taking the side of the ‘illegal’ immigrants. But honestly, it isn’t their fault. It is the fault of the businesses that use the cheap labor and the liberals who want the future voting base. If I lived in a dangerous place and all I had to do is raft across a river to get safety and prosperity, guess what I would do? If we want secure borders and a viable immigration system, we must enforce the laws that are already on the books but build a program that allows for more ‘green cards’ and immigration, if needed. Hiring cheap labor then putting working US citizens on disability, welfare, unemployment, and food stamps is not the answer.

Posted by sarah mac on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 9:23 AM (EST):

@ Anne, $17.5 trillion is the INTEREST on the debt. The actual debt is much higher. The reason the “debt clock” is racing upward is because interest increases rapidly as the country spends more money it doesn’t have. Think credit cards: if you are accumulating interest on your balance and you keep spending (without paying down the balance) the interest grows faster. There are other factors in play here, but it’s important to know that what’s being reported is only the tip of the iceberg.

Posted by mrscracker on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 8:12 AM (EST):

What disturbs me the most is seeing migrant children used as politcal pawns in this matter. Few discuss what’s best for the chidren & young people putting their lives-and limbs-at risk to cross the border.We don’t know how many die before they even reach the Mexican side.

Posted by ANNE on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 6:20 AM (EST):

ORDERLY and LEGAL immigration - YES.
ILLEGAL immigration - NO.
.
CCC: ” 2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin.
Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ DUTIES toward their country of adoption.
Immigrants are OBLIGATED to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them,
to OBEY its LAWS,
and to ASSIST in CARRYING civic BURDENS.”
.
Obama has done very little to protect our borders from illegal immigration, or enforcing current immigration laws in a timely manner.
He is destroying our Country.
With a National Debt of $17.5 TRILLION and growing (not including State debt) the USA is no longer a prosperous nation.
Citizens falling off the unemployment roles because they can not find jobs and therefore quit looking - makes finding a livelihood difficult.
ILLEGALs are not guests.
And what about their DUTIES to the host Country ?
____________________________
_____________________________

Posted by Don L on Thursday, Jul, 10, 2014 5:59 AM (EST):

Question to ponder.
Is the “common good” always a moral good?

Posted by Mom on Wednesday, Jul, 9, 2014 11:24 PM (EST):

The problem is way more than this. No one ever talks about drug problems! Drug cartels and drug violence is ruining many countries, and guess who is the biggest consumer of drugs???? Also, who is going to do the jobs the immigrants do? Be real? Not Americans…in the end, it should not matter, we are citizens of the world, empires rise and fall, and our lives here are just a speck. We need more common sense!

Posted by Grey Bear on Wednesday, Jul, 9, 2014 10:31 PM (EST):

You left out the cause of this debacle. The empty suit in the oval office planned this to purposely cause division & of course ‘it’s always for the children’, as if the party-of-death cares about children. We cannot absorb the constant flow of illegal aliens. I’ll choose my own charities if you please. Amnesty is certainly NOT the answer, it will simply cause more illegals to come. Aiding the party-of-death is not the fair & Catholic way.

Posted by Tom Byrne on Wednesday, Jul, 9, 2014 5:06 PM (EST):

Thank you for a fair and Catholic take on this contentious topic. Unfortunately that means the ideologues will excoriate you, but no matter. We need immigrants and can handle measured immigration into the foreseeable future, but we can’t handle this mad rush.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.